THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARIANITO FETALVERO AND FILADELFO CACHOLA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Appeal from the decision, dated June 22, 1959, in Criminal Case No. 2235 of
the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, finding both accused therein guilty
of murder; and sentencing defendant Marianito Fetalvero to an indeterminate
penalty of from 17 years and 4 months of reclusión temporal to 20 years
of reclusión temporal, and the defendant Filadelfo Cachola, to
reclusión perpetua, both with the accessory penalties provided by law; to
indemnify, jointly and severally, the heirs of the deceased Ernesto Alquetra in
the sum of P6,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
both to share equally the costs.

The following facts have been established by the evidence: In barrio
Capangpangan, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, on February 1, 1955, between 7:00 to 7:30 p.m.
and after supper, the deceased Ernesto Alquetra and hia ten-year old nephew
Enrique Alquetra went down their house to defecate at a vacant lot nearby, a
place habitually used by some people in the neighborhood for that purpose. On
their way, Ernesto and Enrique met Filomena Alquetra who was going to her
grandmother’s house to ask for some rice for her father. Ernesto and Enrique
continued to walk, with the latter behind his uncle at about 1½ meters, when
abruptly, Ernesto swerved north. Before Enrique could follow his uncle, he saw
in the other direction, three meters away, appellant Fetalvero, who was wearing
a hat and a black jacket. Taking two steps forward, Fetalvero drew a gun about
10 inches long, aimed at Ernesto who was then about eight meters away, and fired
successively. Even, as he tried to run away, already hit, Ernesto was met by
appellant Cachola, Fetalvero’s brother-in-law, who thereupon also fired at
Ernesto. The guns used by appellants bore the same appearance.

Upon felling the hapless victim, Cachola scampered from the scene; Fetalvero
had already run away after firing his successive shots at Ernesto. While
fleeing, Cachola came upon Romeo Alquetra, who had gone down their house to
follow his brother Ernesto, and also took a shot at Romeo but fortunately
missed. Meanwhile, ten-year old Enrique, who had sought refuge behind a tree
during the incident, run home to tall for help. He met his uncle Romeo along the
way, to whom lie cried out that Fetalvero and Cachola had killed his uncle
Ernesto. Romeo, Enrique, and others rushed to the spot, but Ernesto was, by
then, a corpse.

Appellants Fetalvero and Cachola interposed self defense and alibi,
respectively, to exculpate themselves from the charge. Fetalvero alleged that he
was on his way to the Vigan población to see a movie that night; that as
he was passing by Ernesto’s house, he saw the latter by the roadside, as if
waiting; that when Ernesto recognized him, the former said: “This is the end of
you now,” simultaneously drawing a gun and firing at appellant Fetalvero; that
in self-defense, appellant also drew his 22-caliber automatic and shot Ernesto
several times.

Fetalvero’s claim of self-defense not only lacks basis, except his sole and
uncorroborated testimony, but is also belied by the overwhelming evidence on
record. That the deceased was the aggressor, who allegedly was first to draw and
shoot, is negated by the absence of any gun of his. Nobody found it, not even
the defense witness, patrolman Nicolas Torio, who allegedly was first to arrive
on the scene. Again, the deceased Ernesto would not have brought along his
ten-year old nephew, Enrique, had his plan been to ambush and kill appellant
Fetalvero, or anyone else. We see no reason for further indulging in a
discussion of this alleged self-defense, which is clearly a fabrication. Indeed,
even Appellant Fetalvero must have been advised of the futility of maintaining
such an untenable theory, for, on more than one occasion in the trial court,
appellant Fetalvero offered to plead guilty to homicide, an offer, however,
understandably rejected by the prosecution.

Equally unmeritorious is appellant Cachola’s alibi that at the time of
the incident, he was at home cooking. Except for this assertion coming from
appellant Cachola himself, we find the alibi completely unsupported.
True, appellant Fetalvero, Cachola’s brother-in-law, asserted that he left the
latter at home, and that Cachola did not participate in the killing. Fetalvero
had nothing to lose in so testifying, while trying to cover up for his
brother-in-law. Fetalvero could not admit that Cachola was with him in the
killing of the deceased Ernesto without wrecking his (Fetalvero’s) claim of
self-defense. Consequently, Fetalvero’s assertion that his brother-in-law was at
home during the incident is bereft of any probative force. And at the risk of
being trite, an alibi, we say again, can not prevail over positive
identification by witnesses.

Enrique, Romeo and Filomena all clearly testified as to Cachola’s identity
and complicity in the crime. Enrique, only a ten-year old boy, relatively much
less exposed to corruptive influences, unwaveringly pointed to Cachola as the
one who, with Fetalvero, shot his untie in told biood. As early as the very
night of the incident, February 1, 1955, in his affidavit, Exhibit “1” for the
defense, ten-year old Enrique not only named Cachola as one of his uncle’s
assailants, but pointed to this man in a face-to-face confrontation. The time
was too short from the incident to have enabled him to devise a false
identification, especially considering the age of the boy. Another telling piece
in the pile of evidence is that from the spot of the killing itself, defense
witness patrolman Nicolas Torio admitted that almost immediately, he went to
Cachola’s house, because reports gathered on the scene pointed to appellants
Fetalvero and Cachola as the killers. The fact confirms the spontaneous
character of the identification, which, together with the rest of the evidence,
leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to the guilt of both appellants.
Particularly as to the alibi, it is pertinent to mention that the house
in which both appellants Fetalvero and Cachola lived was only about 100 meters
from the deceased Ernesto Alquetra’s house and within the immediate vicinity of
the killing, rendering it perfectly possible for appellant Cachola to have
executed his purpose at the scene of the crime and be back in his house in no
time at all.

The credibility of Enrique, Romeo and Filomena Alquetra is assailed as
prejudiced because of their close relation to the deceased. The alleged
affiliation of the Alquetra family to a rival political faction, and,
particularly as to appellant Cachola, the killing in 1947 of one “Piano”,
allegedly related to the Alquetras, in which Cachola was also suspected, are
ascribed as motives for their testifying falsely against appellants. Far too
speculative and finding no support in the evidence, the above imputations can be
given no decisive weight. It is not to be lightly supposed that the relatives of
the deceased victim would callously violate their conscience to avenge the death
of a dear one by blaming it on persons whom they know to be innocent
thereof.

The trial court, which had the better opportunity to observe the demeanor and
truthfulness of the witnesses, was satisfied that the witnesses for the State
were reliable and it is entitled to great weight in assessing matters of
credibility. The alleged inconsistencies or deficiencies in the statements of
some prosecution witnesses, if at all, are insufficient to neutralize the heavy
array of direct and circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of appellants.
In fact, the alleged bad blood between appellant Fetalvero and deceased Ernesto
Alquetra lends further credence to appellants’ guilt, for both sides admit that
even prior to the fatal incident, the deceased and Fetalvero had been mortal
enemies, and had figured in a previous stabbing incident. Taken in connection
with appellants’ own assertion that they and the Alquetras belonged to rival
political factions and did not see eye to eye with each other, the circumstances
show conclusively that appellants had had more tnan sufficient motive to
liquidate the deceased.

The crime is murder, qualified by treachery, and penalized under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code by reclusión temporal maximum to death.
Nocturnity and superior strength are absorbed by treachery (People vs.
Magsalin, 82 Phil., 271; others). Crediting appellant Fetalvero with, voluntary
surrender as found by the lower court, the penalty imposable under the Code is
in the minimum period, or reclusión temporal maximum. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law to appellant Fetalvero, the trial court correctly
imposed on him the penalty of from 17 years and 4 months of reclusión
temporal medium to 20 years of reclusión temporal maximum, that being
a penalty the minimum of which is within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed by the Code, while the maximum is within that which is
properly imposable under the Code considering the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender. Since no modifying circumstance can be considered as
regards appellant Cachola, the trial court again correctly imposed on him
reclusión perpetua, as the medium period of that prescribed by law.

Finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed
in toto. Costs against appellants.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla,
Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.